Fakenews

Gun nutters and Trumptards execute black man out for a Jog

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I HATE beetroot. One place I really like to eat at,

Dude, it's good for ya - ever had it roasted?  MMMMMM 

And it gets those neurons firing - might well help you to grasp arms control 

image.jpeg.47472dea88fac084f6f991c740b77d8c.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Dr. Blue Crab said:

Editorial: I pretty much think we have to give cops discretion or you and I will have to take those jobs ourselves.  I enjoy weapons and hardnose but my reflexes are no longer catlike, I'm 5 pounds over my fighting weight, and I never have had many fucks to give. You don't want me. How about you?

 

And if not you, who? And whomever takes these jobs is now burdened with the need to slow down a microsecond for public perception. Fuck that! Keep moving and die. Stop and sue. Gotta be alive to collect. Cameras and technology should be mandatory. The option is the actual military and no reason to think it would be an improvement. 

Talk til you're blue in the face about color and unfairness. Call Ben Crump to ride on your shoulder.  But freezing and following directions keeps you alive. That's job one. 

Serious reasonable nuanced discussion welcome but this is a no hedgehog zone.

So explain to me how that Aussie woman in her nightie got shot & killed by a cop SHOOTING ACROSS HIS PARTNER. Talk about a violation in weapons safety training right there.

My take from a long way away is, your cops are very poorly trained *as peace officers*. As killers their training seems to be first-rate.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AJ Oliver said:

Dude, it's good for ya - ever had it roasted?  MMMMMM 

And it gets those neurons firing - might well help you to grasp arms control 

image.jpeg.47472dea88fac084f6f991c740b77d8c.jpeg

How's that un-invention machine coming along? Got an example to demonstrate yet?

Or North Korea's compliance with all those signed agreements not to develop nukes, how's that one going for you? How about missile tech and Russia's violation of the treaty? I'll help you out on that one, here's a link:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/08/02/the-inf-treaty-is-dead-and-russia-is-the-biggest-loser/

I do enjoy your contrived attempts to conflate international arms agreements with small arms control in a country awash in them but really - only someone like you could actually believe it. The sad thing is, you probably taught your students that sort of crap too.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

How's that un-invention machine coming along? Got an example to demonstrate yet?

Or North Korea's compliance with all those signed agreements not to develop nukes, how's that one going for you? How about missile tech and Russia's violation of the treaty? I'll help you out on that one, here's a link:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/08/02/the-inf-treaty-is-dead-and-russia-is-the-biggest-loser/

I do enjoy your contrived attempts to conflate international arms agreements with small arms control in a country awash in them but really - only someone like you could actually believe it. The sad thing is, you probably taught your students that sort of crap too.

FKT

I'm no fan of Peacenik Ollie but all that aside, I think it's criminal that he has been laying that crap out for 30 years or so. The very definition of the liberal professor. Bias is bias. Present all arguments equally to the tabula rasa. That's the educators job. The end.

On the cop question: That was an easy one. In most nice countries, people don't have guns. In most dictatorships, people damn sure don't have guns. Here, the odds are way different. Study long ... study wrong. Get the cameras. make the cops toe that blue line not hide behind it. Ties go to the cops. If not, no cops and that ain't gonna be good. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dr. Blue Crab said:

On the cop question: That was an easy one. In most nice countries, people don't have guns. In most dictatorships, people damn sure don't have guns. Here, the odds are way different. Study long ... study wrong. Get the cameras. make the cops toe that blue line not hide behind it. Ties go to the cops. If not, no cops and that ain't gonna be good.

The rot probably really set in when cops started referring to the general public as 'civilians' and set themselves aside as a band of brothers with overweening loyalty to the group not the public. Lying to protect one of your fellows becomes the norm and anyone who doesn't is a rat to be ostracised and removed from the force. Once you have this mindset in place it's really difficult to break it.

Body and car cams are a good first step. No police footage? It didn't happen. Doesn't matter if 6 of your fellow officers said it did, that just means there were 6 body cams that should have recorded what went down and absent that, the presumption is that there are 6 lying police.

Don't like that? Find another job. Perhaps bouncer at a nightclub would be a better fit.

Policing can be a very tough job. They get a lot of power and with that should come the responsibility and the judgement to use it wisely. Bottom line though, they are servants of the public, not masters and it seems far too many forget that.

FKT

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think much has changed other than the rise of communication.

We need "rough men" to run toward shootings. We have to take them warts and all.

"Protect" and "serve" go together better on a cruiser decal rather than real life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr. Blue Crab said:

I don't think much has changed other than the rise of communication.

We need "rough men" to run toward shootings. We have to take them warts and all.

"Protect" and "serve" go together better on a cruiser decal rather than real life. 

The issue you are dodging is that in all too many cases, the shooting did not start until these "rough men" showed up and in those cases, they are the only ones doing the shooting. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LenP said:

The issue you are dodging is that in all too many cases, the shooting did not start until these "rough men" showed up and in those cases, they are the only ones doing the shooting. 

No dodge. Gimme an instant situation or we can't talk. "Rough men" is an allusion to:

 "People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf" famous quotation by Orwell, Churchill ... No one knows.

My real point is that the protectors aren't necessarily servers. And if you can find both in the same guy it would be remarkable. Hundreds of thousands of them looking for a 40k/year job? Nah. 

A problem for so many in a non-partisan way is we want something that isn't. 

We need to face what is: 

Wishing and hoping doesn't change things. 

Please respond Len. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dr. Blue Crab said:

No dodge. Gimme an instant situation or we can't talk. "Rough men" is an allusion to:

 "People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf" famous quotation by Orwell, Churchill ... No one knows.

My real point is that the protectors aren't necessarily servers. And if you can find both in the same guy it would be remarkable. Hundreds of thousands of them looking for a 40k/year job? Nah. 

A problem for so many in a non-partisan way is we want something that isn't. 

We need to face what is: 

Wishing and hoping doesn't change things. 

If you are not aware of the many cases of police killing unarmed people then you are not paying much attention. The police in far too many places have become militarized, when that is not at all the function they should have. Even your quote refers to military not police. The idea that police should be engaged in violent acts on a regular basis is simply absurd. Much of the violence comes from insufficient and/or bad training on the part of the police, not because the job inherently calls for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dr. Blue Crab said:

No dodge. Gimme an instant situation or we can't talk. "Rough men" is an allusion to:

 "People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf" famous quotation by Orwell, Churchill ... No one knows.

My real point is that the protectors aren't necessarily servers. And if you can find both in the same guy it would be remarkable. Hundreds of thousands of them looking for a 40k/year job? Nah. 

A problem for so many in a non-partisan way is we want something that isn't. 

We need to face what is: 

Wishing and hoping doesn't change things. 

My reasonable solution is to partially disarm the police.  No one gets a gun for the first 2 years on the force. They all have to partner with a senior officer for that same time (gradual solo patrols allowed).  Any red flags in that time and they’re washed out.  Psychological exam at the end of 2 year’s probationary period to determine suitability to remain on the force.  Extensive training in the use of firearms.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fakenews said:

My reasonable solution is to partially disarm the police.  No one gets a gun for the first 2 years on the force. They all have to partner with a senior officer for that same time (gradual solo patrols allowed).  Any red flags in that time and they’re washed out.  Psychological exam at the end of 2 year’s probationary period to determine suitability to remain on the force.  Extensive training in the use of firearms.

I worked with a detective in a small southern town.  He decided to stop carrying his handgun.  The chief said carry or stay home.

Unrelated, we had a trial.  The defendant's "witnesses" said he never got out of the car for the arrest.  I never stopped reminding him that it's best if gets up off his ass while making the arrest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hasher said:

I worked with a detective in a small southern town.  He decided to stop carrying his handgun.  The chief said carry or stay home.

Unrelated, we had a trial.  The defendant's "witnesses" said he never got out of the car for the arrest.  I never stopped reminding him that it's best if gets up off his ass while making the arrest.

Use of coherent and cohesive sentences is important when trying to communicate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, LenP said:

If you are not aware of the many cases of police killing unarmed people then you are not paying much attention. The police in far too many places have become militarized, when that is not at all the function they should have. Even your quote refers to military not police. The idea that police should be engaged in violent acts on a regular basis is simply absurd. Much of the violence comes from insufficient and/or bad training on the part of the police, not because the job inherently calls for it. 

Yeah and yeah. I get the broadcast news. Plus Twitter, and here. Not cable. I suspect I hear most of the same stuff you do. It's all blah blah without specifics. My reference to military was  to ask what alternatives we have to the police? How did you read it?  Are police involved in violent acts on a regular basis as you say? Got any real facts?

Millions of people are interacting with the police every livelong day. That's m...m...millions of interactions every day. How many result in cops shooting unarmed civilians? Got a cite for your last sentence?  Specifics please.

You guys want to jump up and down. Go ahead but it doesn't help. Moreover, if police didn't need guns they wouldn't be carrying them. 

Hard cases make bad law. But all we hear about are the hard cases. How many interactions result in horrific outcomes? Gotta be a tiny percentage.

This is us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dr. Blue Crab said:

Yeah and yeah. I get the broadcast news. Plus Twitter, and here. Not cable. I suspect I hear most of the same stuff you do. It's all blah blah without specifics. My reference to military was  to ask what alternatives we have to the police? How did you read it?  Are police involved in violent acts on a regular basis as you say? Got any real facts?

Millions of people are interacting with the police every livelong day. That's m...m...millions of interactions every day. How many result in cops shooting unarmed civilians? Got a cite for your last sentence?  Specifics please.

You guys want to jump up and down. Go ahead but it doesn't help. Moreover, if police didn't need guns they wouldn't be carrying them. 

Hard cases make bad law. But all we hear about are the hard cases. How many interactions result in horrific outcomes? Gotta be a tiny percentage.

This is us.

How many flights are there per day (when there is no pandemic) and how many do we accept crashing each day? Your argument fails when people die as a result of poor training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

My reasonable solution is to partially disarm the police.  No one gets a gun for the first 2 years on the force. They all have to partner with a senior officer for that same time (gradual solo patrols allowed).  Any red flags in that time and they’re washed out.  Psychological exam at the end of 2 year’s probationary period to determine suitability to remain on the force.  Extensive training in the use of firearms.

Wow, a coherent reasonable response with no whining. Thank you Gator, and thank you Jesus!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Use of coherent and cohesive sentences is important when trying to communicate.

Yep, ol' Doctor Hasher is one sloppy attorney. Proof that anyone can pass the bar exam in the South. And he's a doctor ffs. Some readers don't get that reference but that's on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

My reasonable solution is to partially disarm the police.  No one gets a gun for the first 2 years on the force. They all have to partner with a senior officer for that same time (gradual solo patrols allowed).  Any red flags in that time and they’re washed out.  Psychological exam at the end of 2 year’s probationary period to determine suitability to remain on the force.  Extensive training in the use of firearms.

Your "reasonable solutions" ignores the fact that every single person who puts on the uniform is putting a target on their backs - and your "reasonable solution" would make them a liability for their deployed partners, rather than an effective deterrent multiplier.   People don't obey the law because they like individual cops, they don't break the law because they dislike individual cops.  It's usually a risk/reward decision, based upon the potential perpetrator's thoughts about the ability or inability to bring sufficient resources to bear to catch and prosecute them.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dr. Blue Crab said:

Yep, ol' Doctor Hasher is one sloppy attorney. Proof that anyone can pass the bar exam in the South. And he's a doctor ffs. Some readers don't get that reference but that's on them.

Pretty harsh for someone who just got sloppy in a reply, aint't it?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LenP said:

How many flights are there per day (when there is no pandemic) and how many do we accept crashing each day? Your argument fails when people die as a result of poor training.

Wow I didn't expect that from you. No specifics and the 3 card monte. 

I have an answer tho. Dunno how many total flights but I'm certain that we accept each crash. What option do we have?

Same with the cops. What option? Military?

Numbers. Let's stipulate 250 million people over 12 or so having  X interactions with police across the country everyday times 365 days ........ gotta be billions or a really big number. How many egregious shootings? Small number. Acceptable? It has to be.

Don't quit that day job Len.   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Your "reasonable solutions" ignores the fact that every single person who puts on the uniform is putting a target on their backs - and your "reasonable solution" would make them a liability for their deployed partners, rather than an effective deterrent multiplier.   People don't obey the law because they like individual cops, they don't break the law because they dislike individual cops.  It's usually a risk/reward decision, based upon the potential perpetrator's thoughts about the ability or inability to bring sufficient resources to bear to catch and prosecute them.   

Many first world police departments have a sizable % of the force that don’t carry.  But Umerica!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fakenews said:

Many first world police departments have a sizable % of the force that don’t carry.  But Umerica!

What do you expect when the general populace is armed as if war in their front yard is imminent?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

What do you expect when the general populace is armed as if war in their front yard is imminent?

I have many reason gun and ammo control proposals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Pretty harsh for someone who just got sloppy in a reply, aint't it?   

Not at all. That's Doctor Hasher's m.o. He's not a bright guy. Maybe I'm the only mofo that pays attention, Guy. That might have been mean, granted but but but ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dr. Blue Crab said:

Not at all. That's Doctor Hasher's m.o. He's not a bright guy. Maybe I'm the only mofo that pays attention, Guy. That might have been mean, granted but but but ... 

Naw - Hasher's spouted at me, too - but, he's come up w/a few salient posts as well.  I think that in his dotage, he sometimes imbibes early. Good for him - I hope I get to a point in life where I can do that too.  

In replying?  I'm inclined to consider the author, but, to still *try* react to each post as an individual contribution.  I'm hard headed too, so I don't always make that goal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

I have many reason gun and ammo control proposals.

I'm serious now. Why aren't you [in the general sense]  and Jocal and like-minded others on your own forum planning a grassroots campaign to act. As I speculated elsewhere, forcing cops to wear those body cams will happen when enough citizens bug their city council people to make the PD do it. That would be a huge step, and I'd think a very possible one. Then, a whole nother campaign aimed at teens like: fergit fairness. If a cop tells you something, don't even think about a response, freeze. Live long enough to sue them. 

Lots and lots of ideas. MADD did it. Plenty of other examples I bet. 

I can't help but feel that so many flaming whiners just have no idea how dangerous it is on the street. Nobody like to bite their tongue in the face of some dickhead cop but that's the social contract we live or die with.

Fairness is for later. Cop tells you to raise your hands and you reach to your waist, who's the dummy?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Naw - Hasher's spouted at me, too - but, he's come up w/a few salient posts as well.  I think that in his dotage, he sometimes imbibes early. Good for him - I hope I get to a point in life where I can do that too.  

In replying?  I'm inclined to consider the author, but, to still *try* react to each post as an individual contribution.  I'm hard headed too, so I don't always make that goal. 

heh heh. You are indeed the butt of jokes for your mild approach. I used to try to be nicer, and in person I'm an upbeat guy but on here, the stupidity is shocking. The poster that couldn't get the relationship between the EEOC and affirmative action. I don't mind that someone can't cite a lawsuit but one guy here (AT LEAST) didn't realize that AA was and is the govt policy but goddamit, he would argue til the Rapture that whites put down niggers. 

Most of us lilly whites would love that to end. The devil's in the details. $50 bucks says all readers have heard of the Civil Rights Act but I'd bet only a handful of posters could even remotely define the terms, implications, name the century, ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

What do you expect when the general populace is armed as if war in their front yard is imminent?

You know, you get a nice guy like Pres Obama in, things go smoothly, defensive guns seem silly. With Trump, the DOJ, and all the other weirdness, not so much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dr. Blue Crab said:

heh heh. You are indeed the butt of jokes for your mild approach. I used to try to be nicer, and in person I'm an upbeat guy but on here, the stupidity is shocking. The poster that couldn't get the relationship between the EEOC and affirmative action. I don't mind that someone can't cite a lawsuit but one guy here (AT LEAST) didn't realize that AA was and is the govt policy but goddamit, he would argue til the Rapture that whites put down niggers. 

Most of us lilly whites would love that to end. The devil's in the details. $50 bucks says all readers have heard of the Civil Rights Act but I'd bet only a handful of posters could even remotely define the terms, implications, name the century, ...

 

I think you lack any ability to comprehend thoughts of others.

Hey, I bet that makes you really popular and successful.  

If it works for you, go for it.  Just don't think you get a pass here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Dr. Blue Crab said:

Not at all. That's Doctor Hasher's m.o. He's not a bright guy. Maybe I'm the only mofo that pays attention, Guy. That might have been mean, granted but but but ... 

I think he’s bright enough but English isn’t his first language and he partakes too much of the weed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this story on the PA page ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fakenews said:

I think he’s bright enough but English isn’t his first language and he partakes too much of the weed

I think it was the bad acid.  I've been hearing things and they might be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that video shows a lot of accurate information on this case. Looks like the kid had a good look through someone else's partially completed house renovation, not a smart thing to do, with out an invite from the builder or owner.

Also, there is more then enough video information, that the police may have been able to identify the trespasser easily. Welcome to the world of, cameras are everywhere now.

But most importantly,

If these guys in the pickup truck were not allowed to grab their firearm and leave their private property with it, and then to jump out of their truck in the middle of the street, with their firearm, some one may not have died that day.

What you really need to do down there is, with every firearm purchased for private use, you get to select from a black cowboy hat or a white cowboy hat. That way everyone knows if your a good guy or a bad guy.

The American wild wild west is alive and well down there, good luck buckaroos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

Why is this story on the PA page ?

 

Many of the home owners in my mom's division give themselves tours of every build, up to the point the doors and windows go in.   They are all nosy about the floor plan and square footage.   They are all upper middle class, upper middle age, sometimes carrying a glass of wine while they walk.   None have been shot so far.  Double standard.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lark said:

Many of the home owners in my mom's division give themselves tours of every build, up to the point the doors and windows go in.   They are all nosy about the floor plan and square footage.   They are all upper middle class, upper middle age, sometimes carrying a glass of wine while they walk.   None have been shot so far.  Double standard.  

I’ve done that plenty of times never got warned off never got shot.  There’s usually nothing to steal until the late stages of construction and certainly nothing worth stealing that you can jog down the street with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Lark said:

Many of the home owners in my mom's division give themselves tours of every build, up to the point the doors and windows go in.   They are all nosy about the floor plan and square footage.   They are all upper middle class, upper middle age, sometimes carrying a glass of wine while they walk.   None have been shot so far.  Double standard.  

My wife and I checked out the house being built behind us several times as it went up. Just curious about how they were building it and what the layout would be. Nobody shot us. I did not watch the whole video, because 5 minutes of bs propaganda is my limit in a youtube video, however I will add that I am completely and totally not shocked that a guy who was out for a run began running again when he was done being curious. Could he have been given a summons for trespassing, sure. Does it warrant a couple people from the neighborhood running him down and shooting him? Not unless we are talking about an episode of Deadwood. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LenP said:

My wife and I checked out the house being built behind us several times as it went up. Just curious about how they were building it and what the layout would be. Nobody shot us. I did not watch the whole video, because 5 minutes of bs propaganda is my limit in a youtube video, however I will add that I am completely and totally not shocked that a guy who was out for a run began running again when he was done being curious. Could he have been given a summons for trespassing, sure. Does it warrant a couple people from the neighborhood running him down and shooting him? Not unless we are talking about an episode of Deadwood. 

Even if we stipulate this was Arbery in that house, we are not talking about a crime for which the death penalty is an option.

Those two felt emboldened by their weapons. They were gonna be heroes!  They killed a man and fucked up their own lives.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has this thread gotten to the fact that he wasnt really out for a jog 9 miles away from his home, and that he was stealing tools from the house under construction and had been for probably a couple weeks? The guys with the shotgun chased him down to stop him fleeing before the cops got there.

"but that doesnt justify the death penalty!"

No, it doesnt. He got shot because he grabbed the shotgun and tried to take it away from the guy. Its in the video. That's legal justification for self defense, like it or not. That's why these guys didnt originally get charged. 

What makes me so angry about this story is that its being reported everywhere as "a black guy was jogging and 2 white guys chased him and shot him for no reason" when there is a LOT more to the story than that. Nothing the media reports can be taken seriously anymore, its all bullshit.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mark Set said:

Has this thread gotten to the fact that he wasnt really out for a jog 9 miles away from his home, and that he was stealing tools from the house under construction and had been for probably a couple weeks? The guys with the shotgun chased him down to stop him fleeing before the cops got there.

"but that doesnt justify the death penalty!"

No, it doesnt. He got shot because he grabbed the shotgun and tried to take it away from the guy. Its in the video. That's legal justification for self defense, like it or not. That's why these guys didnt originally get charged. 

What makes me so angry about this story is that its being reported everywhere as "a black guy was jogging and 2 white guys chased him and shot him for no reason" when there is a LOT more to the story than that. Nothing the media reports can be taken seriously anymore, its all bullshit.

So the ex-cop allowed the guy to grab his loaded shotgun.  That does not sound like a person who should be allowed such use of a weapon.  Idiot!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Mark Set said:

Has this thread gotten to the fact that he wasnt really out for a jog 9 miles away from his home, and that he was stealing tools from the house under construction and had been for probably a couple weeks? The guys with the shotgun chased him down to stop him fleeing before the cops got there.

"but that doesnt justify the death penalty!"

No, it doesnt. He got shot because he grabbed the shotgun and tried to take it away from the guy. Its in the video. That's legal justification for self defense, like it or not. That's why these guys didnt originally get charged. 

What makes me so angry about this story is that its being reported everywhere as "a black guy was jogging and 2 white guys chased him and shot him for no reason" when there is a LOT more to the story than that. Nothing the media reports can be taken seriously anymore, its all bullshit.

Bullshit

Total bullshit.

You cannot accost a person on the street at gunpoint, then shoot him, and claim self defense.

That is murder.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark Set said:

Has this thread gotten to the fact that he wasnt really out for a jog 9 miles away from his home, and that he was stealing tools from the house under construction and had been for probably a couple weeks? The guys with the shotgun chased him down to stop him fleeing before the cops got there.

"but that doesnt justify the death penalty!"

No, it doesnt. He got shot because he grabbed the shotgun and tried to take it away from the guy. Its in the video. That's legal justification for self defense, like it or not. That's why these guys didnt originally get charged. 

What makes me so angry about this story is that its being reported everywhere as "a black guy was jogging and 2 white guys chased him and shot him for no reason" when there is a LOT more to the story than that. Nothing the media reports can be taken seriously anymore, its all bullshit.

He was 3 miles from his moms home you fucking troll.  He was murdered by racists and a racist DA (he has a history) it up.

End of story

Edit no burglary was reported by the home owner who said nothing was stolen and other than a gun left in one of the racist’s truck overnight no burglaries were reported in the neighborhood.

I hope you catch Captain Tripps and die.

Fuck you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark Set said:

Has this thread gotten to the fact that he wasnt really out for a jog 9 miles away from his home, and that he was stealing tools from the house under construction and had been for probably a couple weeks? The guys with the shotgun chased him down to stop him fleeing before the cops got there.

"but that doesnt justify the death penalty!"

No, it doesnt. He got shot because he grabbed the shotgun and tried to take it away from the guy. Its in the video. That's legal justification for self defense, like it or not. That's why these guys didnt originally get charged. 

What makes me so angry about this story is that its being reported everywhere as "a black guy was jogging and 2 white guys chased him and shot him for no reason" when there is a LOT more to the story than that. Nothing the media reports can be taken seriously anymore, its all bullshit.

Of course you just eliminated one of the primary arguments against gun control.    If I have a gun, by your rules you’re not allowed to defend yourself.   You must make yourself my captive and subject yourself to my tender mercy.   I promise I’m a good guy despite the dark skin, mask and long hair.   Trust me.   Or die.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hasher said:

I think you lack any ability to comprehend thoughts of others. ... 

Thoughts? Nope -- can't read them.

Subjects and predicates lined up in reasonable ways. No problem. Actually, I'm excellent at that.

No worries. 

You often post incoherencies. I'm just less polite than others in pointing them out. If you post stoned/drunk ... party on, Garth. That's well understood here, particularly by me. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dr. Blue Crab said:

I don't think much has changed other than the rise of communication.

We need "rough men" to run toward shootings. We have to take them warts and all.

"Protect" and "serve" go together better on a cruiser decal rather than real life. 

Horseshit.

Police the world over have figured out how to do their jobs without gunning down unarmed or less armed civilians left and right.

In fact, with people like Robert Dear, Dylan Roof, and many other examples it is clear American police DO seem to be able to take down even a heavily armed shooter in some way other than a hail of bullets.

Weird how some struggle though with unarmed black men.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. These yahoos with guns thought they were protecting society, when in fact they were about to screw it up. Bearing arms while policing society is not easy, nor is it without risk.

Academy training prepares most individuals for many interactions, daily exercise of these lessons combined with hashing out scenarios with colleagues and rigorous oversight through departmental oversight lead to application of laws and policing tenets becoming more and more likely. That's a system America can trust, despite it's flaws and mistakes.

Vigilanteism, especially that tinged by racism, is to be viewed with arch skepticism. These self-appointed police did not know a crime was committed, yet felt the threat of deadly force was justified. Holding a gun while purposefully obstructing the movements of another creates a level of danger which needs to be justified, especially if that threat is carried out. 

The burden of proof that the threat of deadly force was necessary to conduct a citizen's arrest is on these men. If they cannot justify that threat, then the death of Aubrey was unnecessary, and therefore charges warranted.

To do otherwise is to make America the land of the gun, by the gun and for the gun. People are just there to shoot, bleed and die. Sorry, but I like the original version of the Gettysburg Address.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:
11 hours ago, Dr. Blue Crab said:

I don't think much has changed other than the rise of communication.

We need "rough men" to run toward shootings. We have to take them warts and all.

"Protect" and "serve" go together better on a cruiser decal rather than real life. 

Horseshit.

Police the world over have figured out how to do their jobs without gunning down unarmed or less armed civilians left and right.

In fact, with people like Robert Dear, Dylan Roof, and many other examples it is clear American police DO seem to be able to take down even a heavily armed shooter in some way other than a hail of bullets.

Weird how some struggle though with unarmed black men.

Dr Crab's quote about "rough men" was not in support of the shooters... I think...

As for the actual quote, "We can only enjoy peace (or words to that effect) because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf," I saw a version of it on Special Forces T-shirts in the 1970s. It sounds more like Rudyard Kipling IMHO than either Orwell or Churchill, but I did find

"In his 1945 “Notes on Nationalism”, Orwell wrote that pacifists cannot accept the statement “Those who ‘abjure’ violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf.”, despite it being “grossly obvious.”"

I've been around guns, been a hunter, shot targets as a recreation, etc etc; and the atmosphere of the USA's gun culture has become more toxic than I can stand.  I've said many times in gun threads, there are no rights without obligations and the USA's gun owners need to convince the country that they accept the responsibility of owning deadly weapons, or they are on a certain road to lose that right.

The fact that it's considered a "gun rights" issue that these two peckerwoods accosted and killed a black man just shows how toxic it has become. I was taught by a number of people, starting with my father, that you simply do not EVER point a gun at anything you're not willing to put a hole in.

Pointing a gun at person is a very risky thing to do. They might have a gun, and shoot you. There might be another person you don't know about, witha  gun, who could shoot you (this would be rightful defense of another). They might not have a gun, and decide to not do what you say. Then what? You don't have the right to kill somebody just because they don't do what you say. Furthermore, pointing a gun is ASSAULT.

You have just committed assault with a deadly weapon. The other person is now fully entitled by law to fight you to the death... in other words if he takes the gun away and kills you, the law is on HIS side. If you shoot him, it's not self defense, it's assault & battery by firearm. If he dies, it's murder.

- DSK

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

You have just committed assault with a deadly weapon. The other person is now fully entitled by law to fight you to the death... in other words if he takes the gun away and kills you, the law is on HIS side. 

- DSK

I’m pretty sure if the jogger had wrestled away the shotgun and in the process shot and killed the mouth breather he would have been charged with murder by the DA and in that county he might well be convicted without the video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

Horseshit.

Police the world over have figured out how to do their jobs without gunning down unarmed or less armed civilians left and right.

In fact, with people like Robert Dear, Dylan Roof, and many other examples it is clear American police DO seem to be able to take down even a heavily armed shooter in some way other than a hail of bullets.

Weird how some struggle though with unarmed black men.

Kinda hard to discuss these situations in the heat of the moment. Coupla things though: The jogger case, Arbery, is a hate crime plain and simple. The huffing and puffing about burglary or whatever might save the shooter from the death penalty. The police misfeasance is the attempt to ignore, maybe even bury the evidence. So this isn't a good example of cops shooting unarmed blacks. 

Likewise, in the Talk video, that's not a close case for me. Kid, as innocent as the driven snow, made a big mistake.

The other type of deal with police shootings, Like the Michael Brown deal is it's own genre of crime. I'm inclined to favor the cops as outlined above but I am not an apologist for the police. I do suggest time after time, those situations are fast and furious. Cop delays, maybe dies. He has family too. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I watch that video I see three men out hunting, with one behind the camera to document their fun. I’d like to know if this stuff has happened before. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

I’m pretty sure if the jogger had wrestled away the shotgun and in the process shot and killed the mouth breather he would have been charged with murder by the DA and in that county he might well be convicted

That's emotion talking, and that wasn't meant as an insult. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Fakenews said:
57 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

You have just committed assault with a deadly weapon. The other person is now fully entitled by law to fight you to the death... in other words if he takes the gun away and kills you, the law is on HIS side. 

- DSK

I’m pretty sure if the jogger had wrestled away the shotgun and in the process shot and killed the mouth breather he would have been charged with murder by the DA and in that county he might well be convicted without the video.

You're almost certainly correct. The law might be on your side but a peckerwood sheriff and DA probably will not be, if your skin is the wrong color.

As I mentioned in another thread, I worked with a fellow in north Florida... which is a very redneck-y place, although I don't recall this man having expressed any racial prejudice... who shot a gas/jiffy store robber in the head. This was rightful defense of another, the robber had already stabbed the clerk and was trying to stab him again, and never saw the man who shot him.

But it is true, I've been told by many that you DO NOT pull a gun on somebody unless you are committed to shooting him in the next few seconds. Far too many people have the idea of pointing a gun at a person and saying FREEZE! or such. Doesn't usually work out that way. One of my Navy friends was one of the most knowledgeable (about guns) gun nuts I have ever met, a Gunners Mate 1 who figured he had the best job in the world. I know for a fact that harbored no racial prejudice because he spent a lot of time with black sailors who had no familiarity with firearms but needed to get qualified. He was against the idea of even carrying a gun in public because of the risk of having to end up killing somebody ... or being killed... over a petty argument or misunderstanding. For example he refused to arm the Shore Patrol in ports we visited, which pissed me off the one time I got stuck doing it (I foolishly figured he would make an exception for me). Another friend and also shooting coach was state patrolman who said much the same thing.

- DSK

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'd called 911.  They'd reported their suspicions.  They'd enlisted their neighbor to act as filmmaker.  Presumably, they had cell phones.

Follow the "suspect", keeping the police apprised of their location, and wait for the police to do their job.

If Mr. Arbery truly was casing the house for a robbery, he had taken nothing.  His hands were empty.  He posed no physical threat to anyone else.  Their own statements say he was running away.  They chased him and accosted him.

These guys decided to cowboy-up and act as if they have the requisite training to handing just such a situation.

Clearly, they failed miserably, and a man paid with his life.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

The fact that it's considered a "gun rights" issue that these two peckerwoods accosted and killed a black man just shows how toxic it has become. I was taught by a number of people, starting with my father, that you simply do not EVER point a gun at anything you're not willing to put a hole in.

This. I drummed that lesson into all my kids from a very early age. I got some shit for it from friends when their kids wanted to play pretend shooting games and I wouldn't allow it.

I pointed out that we had *real* guns and I didn't want to let bad habits set in early.

Youngest child is 29, they all know how to shoot both long arms and hand guns. Not really interested, that's not the point. I'd trust them behind me with a loaded firearm, which is more than I can say for 95% of the people I know.

FKT

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of the evil the DA has done for decades. Reminds me of something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

This. I drummed that lesson into all my kids from a very early age. I got some shit for it from friends when their kids wanted to play pretend shooting games and I wouldn't allow it.

I pointed out that we had *real* guns and I didn't want to let bad habits set in early.

Youngest child is 29, they all know how to shoot both long arms and hand guns. Not really interested, that's not the point. I'd trust them behind me with a loaded firearm, which is more than I can say for 95% of the people I know.

FKT

no man like a man who knows how to 'handle his firearm'. priorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dotard is on an ecological blitzkrieg currently. that particular kind of despicable madness is the worst of righty ideology, the worst of human nature. 

feed that cunt, and his, to the fishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 3to1 said:

no man like a man who knows how to 'handle his firearm'. priorities.

There, there. You just stay in your nice comfy little city condo. Let us people who live in the countryside get on with life and use the tools we need to for the job at hand.

I haven't shot anything in years but there's a wallaby outside the back door that's looking pretty sick and *definitely* shouldn't be out at this time of day. I guess I could kill it with a shovel just so people like you can feel better, but if I have to I think I'll just use the appropriate tool for the job. I'll wait a bit though, I've lots of them about the place and I hate to have to put one down.

FKT

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

You're almost certainly correct. The law might be on your side but a peckerwood sheriff and DA probably will not be, if your skin is the wrong color.

As I mentioned in another thread, I worked with a fellow in north Florida... which is a very redneck-y place, although I don't recall this man having expressed any racial prejudice... who shot a gas/jiffy store robber in the head. This was rightful defense of another, the robber had already stabbed the clerk and was trying to stab him again, and never saw the man who shot him.

But it is true, I've been told by many that you DO NOT pull a gun on somebody unless you are committed to shooting him in the next few seconds. Far too many people have the idea of pointing a gun at a person and saying FREEZE! or such. Doesn't usually work out that way. One of my Navy friends was one of the most knowledgeable (about guns) gun nuts I have ever met, a Gunners Mate 1 who figured he had the best job in the world. I know for a fact that harbored no racial prejudice because he spent a lot of time with black sailors who had no familiarity with firearms but needed to get qualified. He was against the idea of even carrying a gun in public because of the risk of having to end up killing somebody ... or being killed... over a petty argument or misunderstanding. For example he refused to arm the Shore Patrol in ports we visited, which pissed me off the one time I got stuck doing it (I foolishly figured he would make an exception for me). Another friend and also shooting coach was state patrolman who said much the same thing.

- DSK

 

I strongly agree.  Don't pull a weapon during an altercation, unless you are in the act of using it.    I'd add never get in grappling range while holding a distance weapon, but that tends to nullify most of the self defense claims.   If he's over 10 feet away he's less of a threat.  If he's closer there is likely to be a fight for the gun before I can get the barrel level.     Maybe I mistakenly think the other guy is a criminal.   He's likely o make the same assumption since I just pulled a gun on him.   He will have no choice but to escalate until one of us is unable to fight, or decide I wasn't a threat in the first place.   Anything else is to invite death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK there is no question that they should not have shot the guy but I suspected there was more to this story as every news outlet I’ve read leads one to assume that he merely went out for a run in his own neighborhood. This appears to be misleading to say the least. Maybe he was looking for work? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Lark said:

Many of the home owners in my mom's division give themselves tours of every build, up to the point the doors and windows go in.   They are all nosy about the floor plan and square footage.   They are all upper middle class, upper middle age, sometimes carrying a glass of wine while they walk.   None have been shot so far.  Double standard.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Keith said:

Well, that video shows a lot of accurate information on this case. Looks like the kid had a good look through someone else's partially completed house renovation, not a smart thing to do, with out an invite from the builder or owner.

Also, there is more then enough video information, that the police may have been able to identify the trespasser easily. Welcome to the world of, cameras are everywhere now.

But most importantly,

If these guys in the pickup truck were not allowed to grab their firearm and leave their private property with it, and then to jump out of their truck in the middle of the street, with their firearm, some one may not have died that day.

What you really need to do down there is, with every firearm purchased for private use, you get to select from a black cowboy hat or a white cowboy hat. That way everyone knows if your a good guy or a bad guy.

The American wild wild west is alive and well down there, good luck buckaroos.

We are in partial agreement - the two guys in the truck GREATLY over-stepped any justifiable use of force when they pulled a weapon NOT to defend themselves, but, to detain the deceased.   We are in adamant disagreement w/r/t the bolded part.   

Reasonable folks oughta be able to  discuss where the line of propriety exists, and I think that it's w/the expectation of adherence to statute.   Promoting prohibitions because "some people won't do what they're supposed to do" is an approach that never addresses causality, and never ends.  UK knife bans, for example? 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, phillysailor said:

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. These yahoos with guns thought they were protecting society, when in fact they were about to screw it up. Bearing arms while policing society is not easy, nor is it without risk.

Academy training prepares most individuals for many interactions, daily exercise of these lessons combined with hashing out scenarios with colleagues and rigorous oversight through departmental oversight lead to application of laws and policing tenets becoming more and more likely. That's a system America can trust, despite it's flaws and mistakes.

Vigilanteism, especially that tinged by racism, is to be viewed with arch skepticism. These self-appointed police did not know a crime was committed, yet felt the threat of deadly force was justified. Holding a gun while purposefully obstructing the movements of another creates a level of danger which needs to be justified, especially if that threat is carried out. 

The burden of proof that the threat of deadly force was necessary to conduct a citizen's arrest is on these men. If they cannot justify that threat, then the death of Aubrey was unnecessary, and therefore charges warranted.

To do otherwise is to make America the land of the gun, by the gun and for the gun. People are just there to shoot, bleed and die. Sorry, but I like the original version of the Gettysburg Address.

 

Nicely said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

When I watch that video I see three men out hunting, with one behind the camera to document their fun. I’d like to know if this stuff has happened before. 

How do you put the guy w/the camera in the same boat as the shooters?   Do you know something we don't? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

We are in partial agreement - the two guys in the truck GREATLY over-stepped any justifiable use of force when they pulled a weapon NOT to defend themselves, but, to detain the deceased.   We are in adamant disagreement w/r/t the bolded part.   

Reasonable folks oughta be able to  discuss where the line of propriety exists, and I think that it's w/the expectation of adherence to statute.   Promoting prohibitions because "some people won't do what they're supposed to do" is an approach that never addresses causality, and never ends.  UK knife bans, for example? 

 

 

Banks use to put Pinkertons in cages lofted to the ceiling.  Shoot outs ensued in the lobby of banks.

A simple camera now supplies all the information necessary to discourage armed robberies at banks.

People who think a citizen arrest is the way to go unnecessarily risk their lives, their neighbors lives and in this case their own freedom.  Not to mention they killed a man without justification.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

How do you put the guy w/the camera in the same boat as the shooters?   Do you know something we don't? 

Check out number four. 
https://heavy.com/news/2020/05/gregory-travis-mcmichael/

hunting with pick-em-up trucks. Gotta have someone ready to block the escape. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Check out number four. 
https://heavy.com/news/2020/05/gregory-travis-mcmichael/

hunting with pick-em-up trucks. Gotta have someone ready to block the escape. 

Sorry Counselor - that's old news. 
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/12/us/ahmaud-arbery-video-william-bryan/index.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ahmaud-arbery-shooting-video-william-roddy-bryan-reaction/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/09/us/ahmaud-arbery-shooting-video-saturday/index.html

I think might be mistaken in this assumption. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, hasher said:

Banks use to put Pinkertons in cages lofted to the ceiling.  Shoot outs ensued in the lobby of banks.

A simple camera now supplies all the information necessary to discourage armed robberies at banks.

People who think a citizen arrest is the way to go unnecessarily risk their lives, their neighbors lives and in this case their own freedom.  Not to mention they killed a man without justification.

??

I think your logic sequence is a little off, there. Shoot-outs in banks happened while there were guards in "strategic balconies" (kinda like a cage on the ceiling) but it was happening before, too. It certainly wasn't a result of putting Pinkertons in ceiling cages. It was a result of having large amounts of money in a room open to the public.

I think there are several reasons for fewer bank robberies now, but cameras are certainly one.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

How do you put the guy w/the camera in the same boat as the shooters?   Do you know something we don't? 

The McMichaels in the original police report say Bryan tried to block Arbery twice (I presume with his vehicle) but failed.  There’s also the undisputed fact that he was following and video taping.  He had a train wreck interview with Cuomo last night with his lawyer.  He’s involved up to his eyeballs and unless he’s cooperating with prosecutors he’s looking at serious charges.  Legally I think he’d be in the same boat as the shooters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

The McMichaels in the original police report say Bryan tried to block Arbery twice (I presume with his vehicle) but failed.  There’s also the undisputed fact that he was following and video taping.  He had a train wreck interview with Cuomo last night with his lawyer.  He’s involved up to his eyeballs and unless he’s cooperating with prosecutors he’s looking at serious charges.  Legally I think he’d be in the same boat as the shooters.

Didn't see any interviews - and, not refuting your assertions, but, what I'd read said that Byron saw Arbery being chased and jumped in the car to find out what was happening.  It also seems that he's been cooperating w/the police all along, is that wrong? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Didn't see any interviews - and, not refuting your assertions, but, what I'd read said that Byron saw Arbery being chased and jumped in the car to find out what was happening.  It also seems that he's been cooperating w/the police all along, is that wrong? 

McMichaels could be lying but I think the fact that he was following and video taping indicates that he decided to get involved.  I believe you’re right in that he’s cooperating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

My profession does not factor into this case.  When the GBI says it is looking into charging others, who else could they be scrutinizing? 

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/08/852719660/more-arrests-possible-in-the-killing-of-ahmaud-arbery-state-investigators-say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watch the video.  They were boxing in their prey. The man with the cam behind him, the killers in front of him. Turn the volume up.  Think he was an unarmed non-participant after the click click at the 20 second mark or so? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

My profession does not factor into this case.  When the GBI says it is looking into charging others, who else could they be scrutinizing? 

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/08/852719660/more-arrests-possible-in-the-killing-of-ahmaud-arbery-state-investigators-say

Your profession warrants the recognition - just like I call my buddy Jeff "Doctor".   

Your cite still doesn't establish anything other than they are appropriately not ruling out anything until analysis warrants doing so - that's a bit difference than implying complicity. 

This morning's NPR piece seems to echo the prudence of not calling anything "done" yet.  
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/11/854011906/georgia-attorney-general-names-new-prosecutor-in-ahmaud-arbery-case   

You and Gator might be right that the guy who took the video was involved as more than a bystander - but, what I've read so far doesn't support that. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Just watch the video.  They were boxing in their prey. The man with the cam behind him, the killers in front of him. Turn the volume up.  Think he was an unarmed non-participant after the click click at the 20 second mark or so? 

I'll watch it again - I was focused on what was happening to poor Arbery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'll watch it again - I was focused on what was happening to poor Arbery. 

Click at around 18 sec sounds like a slide being racked - I'm going to back off insisting that the videographer isn't involved and see what else comes out. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Click at around 18 sec sounds like a slide being racked - I'm going to back off insisting that the videographer isn't involved and see what else comes out. 

 

When I heard that, the first thought I had was "I wonder what that fella had pointed at that young man when they closer together before that camera started rolling, the camera or the gun." I too want to see how it plays out, but that looked like an exercise in cornering prey to me. 

I went to a camp as a kid where we learned to shoot various weapons, catch all manner of fish, etc., and one of the highlights of the summer was a wild boar hunt...from pickup trucks. I would not participate. It wasn't hunting. It was just killing. That video sent chills down my spine, with that experience in mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In defense of the boar hunt, those things are causing serious damage and pretty much need to be killed as frequently as possible. I also declined to go on a boar hunt when invited, my fellow "hunters" had mainly never hunted anything in their lives and were all going to be issued .357 Magnums. I figured the odds of getting shot in the ass by someone far exceeded the odds of any boars being shot :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

In defense of the boar hunt, those things are causing serious damage and pretty much need to be killed as frequently as possible. I also declined to go on a boar hunt when invited, my fellow "hunters" had mainly never hunted anything in their lives and were all going to be issued .357 Magnums. I figured the odds of getting shot in the ass by someone far exceeded the odds of any boars being shot :o

Wild boar -do- cause damage and they are dangerous. I have hunted boar and it is kinda scary, it's fully possible that the boar turns the tables and starts hunting YOU. The only game I went and bought a specific firearm for, a .44 Mag carbine. And I wanted to put a bayonet on it, just in case. The guide did not laugh when I suggested it.

I was lucky and never was invited to hunt with guys whom I did not think were competent to handle firearms. I saw many at the various different gun clubs I've been members of, including one guy who though he could shoot at his targets when somebody was downrange setting up. He was indignant about being told he couldn't because he's a good shot. Fucking bonehead.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't count myself as a good shot with a pistol, let alone random idiots who probably had never shot one since they had a BB gun in 5th grade :rolleyes: I was imaging a pig running right by me and everyone opening up on it and me :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites